4.4 Article

Smooth- and rough-wall boundary layer structure from high spatial range particle image velocimetry

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW FLUIDS
卷 1, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.1.064402

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. U.S. Office of Naval Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two particle image velocimetry arrangements are used to make true spatial comparisons between smooth- and rough-wall boundary layers at high Reynolds numbers across a very wide range of streamwise scales. Together, the arrangements resolve scales ranging from motions on the order of the Kolmogorov microscale to those longer than twice the boundary layer thickness. The rough-wall experiments were obtained above a continuous sandpaper sheet, identical to that used by Squire et al. [J. Fluid Mech. 795, 210 (2016)], and cover a range of friction and equivalent sand-grain roughness Reynolds numbers (12 000 less than or similar to delta(+) less than or similar to 18000, 62 less than or similar to k(s)(+) less than or similar to 104). The smooth-wall experiments comprise new and previously published data spanning 6500 less than or similar to delta(+) less than or similar to 17 000. Flow statistics from all experiments show similar Reynolds number trends and behaviors to recent, well-resolved hot-wire anemometry measurements above the same rough surface. Comparisons, at matched delta(+), between smooth-and rough-wall two-point correlation maps and two-point magnitude-squared coherence maps demonstrate that spatially the outer region of the boundary layer is the same between the two flows. This is apparently true even at wall-normal locations where the total (inner-normalized) energy differs between the smooth and rough wall. Generally, the present results provide strong support for Townsend's [The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1956), Vol. 1] wall-similarity hypothesis in high Reynolds number fully rough boundary layer flows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据